The Rant

Aura of Annoyance

I know these jokes are old, but with the trial opening up in PA over teaching Intelligent Design, cough, Creationism, cough, in Dover, PA (A group of parents is suing the district saying that teaching ID violates Separation Church and State). I am looking forward to the evidence based on the district's own documentation. And WTF is it with people saying this a real fucking scientific debate? There is no real debate here. None. ID is not science. Period. The only debate here is arguing about how they were able to convince school boards in KS and PA, and why if they will teach ID they will not teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to debate whether Evolution should be taught in schools. The hearings are a prelude to other hearings, including "Should women be allowed to work?" and "Poor Crop Yields: Weather or Witchcraft?"

A fossil found in South Dakota is that of a never before seen species of dinosaur. The horse-sized creature lived some 66 million years ago, or, as it's known in Kansas – yesterday.

Heh. "Problems with evolution". Of course there are "problems" with evolution... name one aspect of scientific inquiry that doesn't have a problem? If there weren't any problems, you wouldn't expect to find any researchers in the field now would you? The kicker is that these problems are NOT FIXED BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN. That said, I think if some ambitious scientist wants to publish research on ID, go right ahead. The statement "some aspects of the universe show evidence of design" is a perfectly good starting point for research, and even if shown (as I suspect it would be) to be highly improbable or unprovable, it at least broadens the scope of human understanding. Which is far more than what the ID PR machine is doing now.

I H8 evolutionists. :-)

Here's the best retort I've got to the "Evolution is just a theory." debate.

"Science" is hypothesis, TEST, theory, MORE TEST. A scientist who comes up with a theory is expected to publish findings and make them available to be scrutinized by other scientists. The theorist's peers recieve accolades and recognition for scrutinizing the "theory" and reinforcing it or disproving it.

Evolution is a theory in the way that gravity is a theory. That Newton's laws of motion break down at close to light speed does not mean that gravity does not exist, it also does not mean that Newton's laws of motion are irrelevant OR on equal footing with a "theory" that dirt is sticky and consequently keeps things from falling off the earth.

Speculating that "Jerry Falwell's imaginary friend did it" is ignorant and juvenile at best. It is not a *theory*. It isn't even a hypothosis, because by definition a hypothosis can be tested by further investigation.

In my mind, while "Seperation of Church and State" is a valid argument, I think that the most fundamental argument against ID is that it is NOT science.

If they don't want their kids to be taught the "Theory of Evolution" because it contradicts The Bible, they can home-school them or ask their UNTAXED church to educate their kids. Teaching kids that the earth is the center of the universe, that women and children are property, that dark skinned people got that way because God got pissed at Noah for getting drunk, that extramaritial sex should be a criminal offense - punishable by stoning - is not unconstitutional. It is - like the "Theory of Intelligent Design" - offensive and wrong, but not illegal.

I'm not really looking forward to these STOOPID kids when they're *all growed up* in a decade or two, but everyone's got the right to mess up their kids.